Predictors of changing patterns of adherence to containment measures during the early stage of COVID-19 pandemic: an international longitudinal study
-
Published:2023-04-17
Issue:1
Volume:19
Page:
-
ISSN:1744-8603
-
Container-title:Globalization and Health
-
language:en
-
Short-container-title:Global Health
Author:
Chong Yuen YuORCID, Chien Wai Tong, Cheng Ho Yu, Lamnisos Demetris, Ļubenko Jeļena, Presti Giovambattista, Squatrito Valeria, Constantinou Marios, Nicolaou Christiana, Papacostas Savvas, Aydin Gökçen, Ruiz Francisco J., Garcia-Martin Maria B., Obando-Posada Diana P., Segura-Vargas Miguel A., Vasiliou Vasilis S., McHugh Louise, Höfer Stefan, Baban Adriana, Neto David Dias, da Silva Ana Nunes, Monestès Jean-Louis, Alvarez-Galvez Javier, Blarrina Marisa Paez, Montesinos Francisco, Salas Sonsoles Valdivia, Őri Dorottya, Kleszcz Bartosz, Lappalainen Raimo, Ivanović Iva, Gosar David, Dionne Frederick, Merwin Rhonda M., Gloster Andrew T., Kassianos Angelos P., Karekla Maria
Abstract
Abstract
Background
Identifying common factors that affect public adherence to COVID-19 containment measures can directly inform the development of official public health communication strategies. The present international longitudinal study aimed to examine whether prosociality, together with other theoretically derived motivating factors (self-efficacy, perceived susceptibility and severity of COVID-19, perceived social support) predict the change in adherence to COVID-19 containment strategies.
Method
In wave 1 of data collection, adults from eight geographical regions completed online surveys beginning in April 2020, and wave 2 began in June and ended in September 2020. Hypothesized predictors included prosociality, self-efficacy in following COVID-19 containment measures, perceived susceptibility to COVID-19, perceived severity of COVID-19 and perceived social support. Baseline covariates included age, sex, history of COVID-19 infection and geographical regions. Participants who reported adhering to specific containment measures, including physical distancing, avoidance of non-essential travel and hand hygiene, were classified as adherence. The dependent variable was the category of adherence, which was constructed based on changes in adherence across the survey period and included four categories: non-adherence, less adherence, greater adherence and sustained adherence (which was designated as the reference category).
Results
In total, 2189 adult participants (82% female, 57.2% aged 31–59 years) from East Asia (217 [9.7%]), West Asia (246 [11.2%]), North and South America (131 [6.0%]), Northern Europe (600 [27.4%]), Western Europe (322 [14.7%]), Southern Europe (433 [19.8%]), Eastern Europe (148 [6.8%]) and other regions (96 [4.4%]) were analyzed. Adjusted multinomial logistic regression analyses showed that prosociality, self-efficacy, perceived susceptibility and severity of COVID-19 were significant factors affecting adherence. Participants with greater self-efficacy at wave 1 were less likely to become non-adherence at wave 2 by 26% (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.74; 95% CI, 0.71 to 0.77; P < .001), while those with greater prosociality at wave 1 were less likely to become less adherence at wave 2 by 23% (aOR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.75 to 0.79; P = .04).
Conclusions
This study provides evidence that in addition to emphasizing the potential severity of COVID-19 and the potential susceptibility to contact with the virus, fostering self-efficacy in following containment strategies and prosociality appears to be a viable public health education or communication strategy to combat COVID-19.
Funder
The Seeding Research Fund, The Nethersole School of Nursing, Faculty of Medicine, The Chinese University of Hong Kong
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health,Health Policy
Reference67 articles.
1. Pincombe M, Reese V, Dolan CB. The effectiveness of national-level containment and closure policies across income levels during the COVID-19 pandemic: an analysis of 113 countries. Health Policy Plan. 2021;36(7):1152–62. 2. Wibbens PD, Koo WWY, McGahan AM. Which COVID policies are most effective? A Bayesian analysis of COVID-19 by jurisdiction. PLoS One. 2021;15(12):e0244177. 3. Haug N, Geyrhofer L, Londei A, Dervic E, Desvars-Larrive A, Loreto V, Pinior B, Thurner S, Klimek P. Ranking the effectiveness of worldwide COVID-19 government interventions. Nat Hum Behav. 2020;4(12):1303–12. 4. Kucharski AJ, Klepac P, Conlan AJK, Kissler SM, Tang ML, Fry H, Gog JR, Edmunds WJ. Effectiveness of isolation, testing, contact tracing, and physical distancing on reducing transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in different settings: a mathematical modelling study. Lancet Infect Dis. 2020;20(10):1151–60. 5. Coroiu A, Moran C, Campbell T, Geller AC. Barriers and facilitators of adherence to social distancing recommendations during COVID- 19 among a large international sample of adults. PLoS One. 2020;15(10):e0239795.
Cited by
5 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献
|
|